Abstract
The number of students with low proficiency in reading is becoming more prevalent and even with that they are expected to keep up with the rest of their grade level peers. This impacts the child negatively and ends up having low self-esteem and at times anger issues. In the school that this study will take place, the curriculum is challenging in the sense that students are required to reach 80 percent on an assessment before they can move on to a new lesson. This is a task that many students are uncomfortable with, and requires constant review of concepts and retaking assessments several times. They start falling behind and have a hard time catching up with their peers. The 12-wek study intended to determine the effectiveness of implementing direct instructions as an intervention for special education students towards increasing their reading fluency skills. The study was conducted with six middle school special education students using an AB research design. The participants were given an Easy Curriculum Based Measurement reading fluency probe. During phase 1 of the study which lasted for six weeks where the respondents received explicit reading instructions. The researcher conducted the same probe at the end of two, four and six weeks. In the second phase, which was also six weeks long, the participants were initiated through direct instructions. The same probe was administered again after two, four and six weeks. It was anticipated that direct instructions would increase the reading fluency on average more effectively than explicit instruction, however; the results indicated that there was no significant correlation between the two instruction methods.
Effects of Direct Instruction on Reading Fluency
In increasingly diverse school districts based on issues such as ethnicity and culture, a one size fits all approach is becoming the norm. Direct instructions come in handy to the special student by helping their fluency. Studies have been done in all academic areas and show great success levels of direct instructions. A total of 37 studies were done and 34 of the found that students under direct instruction method perform better as compared to those using other programs.Additionally,90% of 45 studies done on students under the disability category noted direct instruction’s positive effects towards their studies (Marchand-Martella et al., n.d.). There is evidence that suggests that some middle school students struggle in the area of reading fluency. It is imperative that instruction meets the individual needs of students. The practice of direct instruction in special education classrooms, is beneficial with the learning process of these disabled children (Shippen et al., 2005). The direct instruction process permits the student to concentrate on the reading problem and follow a guided practice approach. This approach is composed of scripted lessons, choral student responses, and application of clear signals to understand the response made by the pupils. A feedback system is a part of this process. The progress of learning of the students can be evaluated efficiently. It is further evident that the middle school students with inefficient reading ability require the application of direct instruction to fill the gap (Spencer & Manis, 2010).
Primary Elements of Reading
Phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension are the major elements associated with the process of reading. The concept of phonemic awareness is the process of understanding how words are composed and how distinct sound units blend together to result in pronunciation (Chiang & Lin, 2007). Phonemic awareness is essential for developing the reading ability of a child and this is found to be weak in children with reading disabilities (Suggate, 2014). The guidelines that dictate the association between alphabets while spelling a word are considered as phonics which is evident to be connected with the word decoding ability of the concerned child. Fluency is indicated as the accuracy of reading reflected by a student. It is also evident that the ability to read fluently is connected with the process of reading comprehension (Drecktrah & Chiang, 1997). Fluency in reading is observed to be the major limitation of the children with learning disabilities. Vocabulary is defined as the word power of an individual and the acts of speaking, listening, reading and writing are connected with vocabulary. Vocabulary should be included within the teaching process of direct instruction (Drecktrah & Chiang, 1997). It is also observed as repeated exposure to new vocabulary enhances the learning efficiency of the children in special education system. Comprehension is reflected as the ability to construct new sentences by reasonable connecting works. This element is identified as significant in the process of intentional interaction of the reader with the text (Spencer & Manis, 2010).
Theoretical Background
The practice of direct instruction in the classroom has been considered as a systematic approach towards improving the participation level of the concerned children. With reference to the instruction given it is observed that the teacher generally allows the student to repeat the correct answers and also evaluates the student by delivering them with feedback on their respective performance. This practice of teaching has been found to be beneficial with respect to the reading fluency of the concerned pupil (Lee & Yoon, 2015).The following theory is important in addressing the intervention needed to curtail academic failures by special students as a result of learning disability.
Stage Theory of Reading Development
The Stage Theory of Reading Development ties in to the problem in that it explains the requirement of intervention in the learning process of the children with learning disabilities in order to minimize the occurrence of academic failures (Carnine & Silbert, 2012). This theory depicts that reading should be included within the teaching process accompanied by systematic instruction. This particular theory has proposed six distinct stages starting from stages zero to stage five (Carnine & Silbert, 2012). The stage zero is considered as the pre reading stage whereby emphasis should be given towards the child’s growth in terms of knowledge and the fluency in spoken language with a control over the vocabulary and syntax issue. The students up to six years of age are included within this stage. The next stage includes the children studying in grade one and two and the children at this stage are observed to understand the association between alphabets and alphabet sounds. In stage two it is evident that the children are capable of recognizing the complicated phonetic elements and should be fluent in oral reading (Berkeley, Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2009). Stage 3 is marked as the vocabulary and reading developmental stage of the children wherein the students should be capable of reading variety of texts. Stage 4 has been marked as the student’s high school phase whereby the student should be capable of analyzing the text read. The last stage reflects the capability of the student with respect of reading skill followed with capable of analysis and judgment (Lloyd, Cullinan, Heins & Epstein, 1980). Students with reading or learning disabilities do not follow the mentioned developmental stages of the proposed theory and are in need of direct instruction model in this respect (Beers, 2003).
Purpose of the Study
The purpose of this research is to explore the importance of direct instruction on fluency in middle school special education students. This study aims to understand how the reading fluency skills of middle school special needs students are effected by direct instruction. This research also tends to fill the gap that exists in integrating special students that have learning disabilities into the education system and to eradicate the failures that have been common for such cases. The hypothesis of this study is that every special child has a chance to academic excellence regardless of their disability.
Methods
Participants
The study will consist of five participants. Each will be in the 7th-8th grade at the time of the study. They all reside in Iowa, but have been enrolled in CRSD. They also attend the Iowa Virtual Academy. The Iowa Virtual Academy is a public virtual school that currently has 305 students in grades K-12. The school has a high population of students with a low socioeconomic status. The percentage of students that qualify for the federal free-and-reduced lunch program in the school is 67.2 percent. The district’s average is 35.1 percent. Four participants are Caucasian and one is Native American.
The participants receive a majority of their instruction in a virtual setting. However, the participants in this study will be receiving face to face instruction in meeting room at a local library. The library is within four blocks of each participant. This is important because it will allow them to walk or ride their bike each day thus showing up for the sessions in good time.
The participants will consist of four boys and one girl. Each will be labeled as: Participant A, Participant B, Participant C, Participant D, and Participant E. This is to assure confidentiality of all of the participants.
Participant A is a 13-year-old student. He will be in the 7th grade during the time of the study. He has an IEP and goals in the areas of reading, math, and writing. He struggles with reading fluency and is several years behind his peers. He struggles with decoding words, basic phonics skills, and will often skip words that he does not know. He finds it really challenging to utter some words such as athletics.
Participant B will be in the 8th grade during the duration of the study. She has an IEP and goals in the areas of reading, math, and writing. She struggles with reading fluency and is several years behind other grade level peers. She is older for her grade level in comparison to her peers. This is due to her being held back several times. She will turn 16 during the fall of her 8th grade school year. She struggles with decoding, basic phonics skills, and will skip words she does not know.
Participant C is a 13 year old student. He will in the 8th grade during the time of the study. He has an IEP and goals in the areas of reading and writing. He moved from Georgia at the beginning of the school year. He struggles with reading fluency and is two grade levels behind his peers. He has troubles with decoding and will attempt to read words, but will often skip over them if he can’t get it the first time around. In most cases reading is laborious to him.
Participant D is a 13 year old student. He will be in the 7th grade at the time of the study. He has an IEP and goals in the areas of: reading, writing, and math. He struggles with fluency and is several years behind his peers. He has been gradual increasing his skills in decoding, phonics, and identification of sight words. However, there is still a two year discrepancy between him and his peers. His reading speed is too slow and feels demotivated every time he tries to read.
Participant E is a 12 year old student. He will be in the 7th grade during the time of the study. The student has an IEP and goals in the areas of writing and reading. He struggles in the area of reading fluency. He is around two years behind his grade level peers. He has knowledge of some phonics and decoding skills. However, he does readily use them when he is reading. He has a low engagement level and often lacks the effort needed to fully complete tasks. He finds reading laborious and becomes irate whenever he is asked to read.
The participants were not picked at random. An email was sent out to the parents of each middle school student that is currently receiving special education services (see Appendix A). The email indicated the reasoning behind the study. Further, approval was also sought from IRB as well. The researcher followed up by calling the parents of each middle school student that is currently receiving special education services. Throughout the call, the researcher indicated the reasoning behind the study and how it would be implemented. All five parents volunteered their child to take part in the study. The parents and participants will not receive any money or reward for participating.
There will be two phases in the study, experimental and baseline. During the first phase the researcher will implement explicit reading instruction. During the second phase the researcher will be implementing direct instruction through the High Noon curriculum. All participants will concurrently take part in each stage. They are not representative of the general population. They were selected on the basis that they have an IEP and are currently on the researcher’s class roster. All participants are currently receiving specialized services and accommodations in the area of reading fluency.
Apparatus and materials
The study will be broken into two phases. During Phase 1 participants will take part in one hour lessons Monday thru Friday. These lessons will likely take place sometime in the morning and at the same time every day, 9am to be specific. All participants have been provided a laptop computer, an apparatus that will be essential for school purposes. They will be asked to bring that computer with them each day. During the six weeks of this phase the participants will receive explicit instruction in the areas of: word work, phonics, vocabulary, and decoding. They will be asked to complete worksheets, take part in small group activities, and complete individualized assignments. All assignments will be completed during class. Some will take longer than one class period to complete. In this situation, participants will continue where they left off. If a participant finishes before the rest of the, they will continue working on assignments for other classes.
Regular checkpoints will be given to assure that all students have mastered the content of the lessons. They will have the ability to review and retake if they are not able to reach the 80 percent mastery level. If the mastery level is not met in class, they will be asked to review at home and master it at a later time. Participants will have access to all checkpoints online. The overall instructional theme will focus on renewable resources, recycling, and conservation. All topics will supplement the information that participants will be learning in their science coursework. The individual interests of the participants will be considered when selecting course materials.
Each participants will be given paper copies and directions for each given task. All participants will also have access to all copies in a computer file format. Participants will complete writing tasks using Word and will also have the option to complete tasks using a paper and pencil. Other assistive technologies, including Chrome applications, will be used on an individual basis. They will use a Google text to speech application when needed to read any unfamiliar words. In some cases participants will be asked to complete assignments and projects completely online. This will include teacher made activities in the Study Island program.
During Phase two all participant will be instructed using High Noon Level 2. High Noon is a comprehensive reading program that uses direct instruction methods. Each lesson consists of review followed by the introduction of a new phonics skill. Each participants will be provided with a paper copy of the student workbook. Copies with enlarged print will be made to accommodate any participants if needed. Bookmarks, page guides, or highlighting pens will also be provided if needed.
An Easy Curriculum Based Measurement probe (to assess the level of improvement in the children) will be administered to each participant before the start of Phase 1 and every two weeks after until the end of the study, Appendix B. The grade level of each probe given may vary on an individual. However, each participant will take the same grade level probe throughout the duration of the study. Each participant will be provided a paper copy of a reading passage. The administrator will also have a copy in order to mark any incorrect or omitted words as the participant is reading, Appendix C. The font size of print will be increased to meet the needs of any participants. A bookmark will also be available for any participant that have difficulty keeping their place while reading.
A timer on a cell phone or computer will be set for one minute. The timer will be manually started when the participant starts to read their first word. At the end of one minute a buzzer will sound. This will signal the participant to stop reading. The number of words that were correctly read will be entered into Iowa IDEA. The correct words per minute that are read will be entered in the same location after each probe is administered. It will allow the researcher to date, graph, and add notes to each data point that is entered. At the end of each phase the data from each participant will be entered into an Excel Spreadsheet. This will allow the researcher to compare the data between all participants. The average increase in correct words read will be calculated for each phase. The average from each phase will then be compared to see if there were any changes in the correct words read.
Procedure
The fluency rate of each participant will be assessed before the start of Phase 1. An Easy Curriculum Based Measurement reading fluency probe will be administered to each participant. Participants will complete the probe in a classroom setting and have face to face contact with the administrator. The probe will accessed online at www.easycbm.com and printed off. Each participant will have a paper copy of the reading passage to read from. The researcher will have a paper copy to mark any words that were omitted, read incorrectly, or to write any notes.
The grade level of the reading probe will vary by participant. Each participant will be given a reading fluency probe that matches their independent reading level. They will be given a reading probe that matches their unique level for the duration of the study. For each fluency probe a participant will be asked to read the reading passage that is provided to them. They will be directed to read it aloud and try to read any words that are unfamiliar to them. They will also be directed to skip over any words that they cannot or choose not to make an attempt to read.
A timer will be set on a cell phone for one minute. It will be manually started when the participant starts to read their first word. A buzzer will sound at the end of the minute. This will indicate that the participant may stop reading. At the end of one minute the researcher will calculate the number of correct words that were read during the one minute. This will include all words that were self-corrected during the testing period. The number of words that were correctly read will be entered into Iowa IDEA. This will allow the researcher to date, graph, and add notes to each data point that is entered.
During Phase 1 the dependent variable will be the fluency rates of each of the participants. The independent variable will be the explicit reading instruction that will be implemented for participants. The variable will be the same for all participants. Instruction will take place for one hour five days a week. The time this instruction will take place will be determined at a later time. This will allow the researcher to work with other teachers to find a time that works for all participants. Throughout this phase of the study participants will take part in small group reading instruction. All five participants will be in this small group. Explicit reading instruction will be implemented. Participants will be asked to complete several worksheets and quizzes. They will also take part in any projects that may include working with a partner or small group. In some cases they will be asked to complete activities using a computer and internet resources. Directions or samples will be given to all participants to complete these tasks.
Participants will be given a reading fluency probe throughout Phase 1. One will be given to each participants at the end of 2, 4, and 6 weeks. This probe will be the same probe type that was given at the start of the phase. The level of the probe given to each participants may vary based off of the reading levels of each participant. Each participant will be given probes in this chronological order. At the end of this phase the data from each participant will be entered into an Excel Spreadsheet. This will allow the researcher to compare the data between all participants. The average increase or decrease in correct words read will be calculated for each two week testing period in this phase. The averages of each participant will then be compared to themselves and the other participants taking part in the study.
During Phase 2 the dependent variable will stay the same. The reading fluency rates will be assessed every two weeks during this phase. All students will be instructed using High Noon curriculum as explained in the materials section. All participants will be placed into level 2 of the program.
High Noon is a comprehensive reading program that uses direct instruction methods. Each lesson consists of review followed by the introduction of a new phonics skill. It is then followed by varying reading, spelling, and writing activities. All materials will be provided to each of the participants. The researcher will be implementing the direct instruction materials throughout this phase. The researcher has several years of experience using various direct instruction curriculums. However, has only about a year of experience using the curriculum that will be used in this study. The researcher has also been trained in several different direct instruction curriculums. The duration of each individual trainings ranged from one to two weeks.
Easy Curriculum Based Measurement probes will administered after weeks 2, 4, and 6 of this phase. These are the same probes that will be administered throughout the duration of the study. The protocol will be the same as it was in the first phase. When each participant has completed a probe the data will be entered in Iowa IDEA.
Data Analysis
At the end of the phase the all data will be entered into an Excel Spreadsheet. The data will then be averaged for each two week testing period. The averages will then be compared within each participant and to the rest of the participants in the study. Increases or decreases in the correct words will be noted.
Results
The study was an AB research design administered through dependent samples t-Test with data collected once for every two weeks over a period of 12 weeks. The results which were obtained from the number of words that each student managed to read per minute indicated that respondents under explicit instruction had an average score of -1 in terms of frequency at which they managed to read the words per minute. On the other hand, the respondents under direct instruction managed an average score of 1.17. Precisely, one of the students under explicit instruction read 58, 53 and 49 words for tests 1, 2 and 3 respectively whereas under direct instruction, the student read 60, 62 and 64 words for tests 1, 2 and 3 respectively. The mean change for the explicit instruction students was -1.67 and the standard deviation was 15.37. On the other hand, the mean change for students under direct instruction was 5.00 whereas the standard deviation was 1.25 as exhibited by figure 1 & 2. There was such a significance difference between the two groups of the students. With such a difference, it was proved that direct instruction increases reading fluency on average more effectively compared to explicit instruction.
Figure 1;
Figure 2;
References
Associates, O. (2016). Behaviorism Theory: Education Curriculum and Learning Resources. Funderstanding.com. Retrieved from http://www.funderstanding.com/theory/behaviorism/
Beers, K. (2003). When Kids Cannot Read: What Teachers Can Do. Portsmouth: NH: Heinemann
Berkeley, S., Scruggs, T., & Mastropieri, M. (2009). Reading comprehension instruction for students with learning disabilities, 1995-2006. Remedial and special education, 31(6), 423-436. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0741932509355988
Carnine, D., & Silbert, J. (2012). Challa’s model. Reading Development. Retrieved from http://www.education.com/priont/chall-model-readingdevelopment/
Chiang, H., & Lin, Y. (2007). Reading Comprehension Instruction for Students With Autism Spectrum Disorders: A Review of the Literature. Focus On Autism And Other Developmental Disabilities, 22(4), 259-267. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/10883576070220040801
Drecktrah, M., & Chiang, B. (1997). Instructional Strategies Used by General Educators and Teachers of Students with Learning Disabilities: A Survey. Remedial and Special Education, 18(3), 174-181. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/074193259701800306
Lee, J., & Yoon, S. (2015). The Effects of Repeated Reading on Reading Fluency for Students With Reading Disabilities: A Meta-Analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022219415605194
Lloyd, J., Cullinan, D., Heins, E., & Epstein, M. (1980). Direct Instruction: Effects on Oral and Written Language Comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 3(4), 70. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1510677
Marchand-Martella, N., Kinder, D., & Kubina, R. (n.d.). Nifdi.org. Retrieved 8 October 2016, from http://www.nifdi.org/resources/news/hempenstall-blog/hempenstalls-referenced-documents/345-special-ed-di/file
Shippen, M., Houchins, D., Steventon, C., & Sartor, D. (2005). A Comparison of Two Direct Instruction Reading Programs for Urban Middle School Students. Remedial and Special Education, 26(3), 175-182. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/07419325050260030501
Spencer, S., & Manis, F. (2010). The Effects of a Fluency Intervention Program on the Fluency and Comprehension Outcomes of Middle-School Students with Severe Reading Deficits. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25(2), 76-86. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2010.00305.x
Suggate, S. (2014). A Meta-Analysis of the Long-Term Effects of Phonemic Awareness, Phonics, Fluency, and Reading Comprehension Interventions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 49(1), 77-96. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022219414528540
Watson, S., Gable, R., Gear, S., & Hughes, K. (2012). Evidence-Based Strategies for Improving the Reading Comprehension of Secondary Students: Implications for Students with Learning Disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27(2), 79-89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5826.2012.00353.x
Winn, J. (1994). Promises and Challenges of Scaffolded Instruction. Learning Disability Quarterly, 17(1), 89. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1511107
Appendix A
Dear learning coaches,
As part of my graduate program I will be completing a research project. The project will likely begin in the fall of next school year, and will last twelve weeks. The purpose of the research is to explore the use of direct instruction during your child’s reading instruction. Direct instructions bring about improved learning abilities and it is for this reason that your child’s progress will be monitored to in a quest to improve his ability. I will be calling you later this week to explain the details and to address any questions or concerns.
Thanks,
Amy
Appendix B
Student Copy Form 5-1
One day, Alice’s teacher, Mr. Jacobs told the class they would be making crossword puzzles. Mr. Jacobs split the class in two groups. The first group of students had to make crossword puzzles about the food chain. The second group had to make crossword puzzles about the human body. Alice was happy when she got put in the second group. She loved learning about the human body. It was her favorite part of science class.
After the groups were formed, Mr. Jacobs gave each group articles about their topic. Students selected ten important words from the articles as the answers to their puzzles. Then, they created answer keys on pieces of graph paper. The answers were placed on the graph paper both up and down the squares and across the paper. Then, the students wrote clues to go with each of the words. The first word Alice chose for her puzzle was brain. Her clue for brain was “This organ is wrinkled and helps you to think. The word goes up and down on the paper.”
After the students finished creating the clues, they wrote numbers on the squares where the words started. Next, the students shaded the squares that had no letters. After everyone finished, they exchanged crossword puzzles. The students solved each other’s puzzles, using the clues. Alice was happy. This had been a fun, creative assignment. She could not wait to tell her friends in other classes about it.
Appendix C
Reading Running Record Symbols and Marking Conventions
|
Reading Behavior |
Marking Convention |
Example |
|
Accurate word reading
|
√ check mark above each correctly read word |
√ √ √ The brown dog… |
|
Substitutions (one error if not self-corrected; record one error regardless of the number of incorrect substitutions) |
Write each word attempted above the actual word |
√ brave √ The brown dog… |
|
Omission (one error) |
─── long dash |
√ ──── √ The brown dog…
|
|
Insertion (one error) |
Λ caret in the extra word |
√ Λ little √ The brown dog…
|
|
Repetition of one word (no error) |
R (one repetition) R2 (two repetitions) R3 (three repetitions)
|
√ R √ The brown dog… |
|
Repetition of phrase (no error) |
R with line and arrow to the point where the reader returned to repeat |
ß———— R The brown dog… |
|
Self- correction (no error) |
SC after the error to indicate corrected error
|
√ brave/SC √ The brown dog… |
|
Intervention / unable to read word – word told (one error) |
Write T above the word if you tell the student the word (after 1 5-10 second wait) |
T The brown dog… |
|
Beginning Sound (no error) (Optional) |
Mark the sound above and a √ check if s/he follows with a correct word |
√ b/ √ √ The brown dog… |
